Sep 242008
 

It is not unknown for me to watch subtitled films, and to enjoy them (assuming the film appeals to me of course!). For some reason there are plenty of people who will not watch such films and they really do not know what they are missing. Sure it is a little bit of extra work to watch one, so watching a mindless entertainment film (which I am not snobbish enough to refuse to watch … nothing wrong with a bit of mindless entertainment) with subtitles probably is not worth it.

But they are tons of absolutely great films out there that are more than worth the extra investment in time … “Hero”, “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”, “Jamon, Jamon”, and countless others. Not only are there great film makers who make films in languages other than English, but every film offers a small window into the culture of the country it comes from.

The strange thing is that I once sat down with a friend to watch “Crouching Tiger” and it accidentally started playing the dubbed in English version. Neither of us could stand it and had to restart the film in Mandarin with English subtitles. Something about the actors moving their lips in a pattern totally unrelated to the dialogue was deeply off putting.

Sep 202008
 

Lehman Brothers collapse, Northern Rock run, HBOS takeover. All were in theory good stable banks suffering slightly because of bad debt (US subprime) which may be why the financial markets are so twitchy about them. Even though the markets were in large part responsible for the takeover of HBOS (nothing apparently wrong with them – they just suffered an inexplicable share price collapse).

Now the US government is promising to throw hundreds of billions at the problem by buying up bad debt on top of the trillion dollars already used to protect the banking system. Probably a very sensible move.

But it is slightly peculiar that a freemarket government (and a particularly keen one at that) is bailing out private companies. Perhaps banking is a special case; after all we have seen a housing crisis in the US cause financial panic world-wide, even in industry sectors that have very little to do with banking. But if banking is a special case, it needs special treatment.

The traditional view is that intervention to save banks is wrong, because to rescue banks would encourage banks to take risks they would otherwise avoid. There would be some truth in that if in fact only banks with poor practices failed and the people responsible for bad practices did in fact suffer. Well, HBOS only “failed” (actually got taken over at a rock bottom price) because their share price collapsed for no good reason and because other banks may have been reluctant to lend to a bank in that situation. Lehman Brothers? Well their CEO isn’t suffering too much … he was paid a $22 million bonus last year, which is more than enough to last any reasonable person a lifetime.

Going back to the root causes of the current problems, we can see that it was initially caused by a great deal of irresponsible lending done in the expectation that with rising prices, there were huge profits to be made. Indeed the US is investigating numerous cases of fraud committed by the lenders.

Over the last thirty or so years, the trend has been to remove regulation from the banking sector to give it more freedom on the grounds that regulation was stifling the free market in its quest to make ever greater profits. As it has turned out the greed and irresponsibility of some lenders has shown that bankers cannot be trusted to behave responsibly without strong regulation or close supervision.

First of all, because banking is world-wide, any action by governments has to be done on a world-wide basis to avoid distortions in the banking market where a bank in a country with less stringent regulation would have an unfair advantage.

Secondly because bailing out bad banks has been and will always be so costly, banks should pay a higher rate of tax than other companies.

Finally each bank must have a supervising member on its board of directors who would attempt to identify bad practices and stop them.

Sep 202008
 

Apparently one of the most popular search terms hitting my Blog is “what is a zonky”. I don’t think I actually say anywhere, so as a service to those who accidentally end up here looking for information on what one is, here is the explanation …

A zonkey is a cross between a zebra and a donkey. More information on that can be found on the wonderful Wikipedia. Those who are looking closely will notice I haven’t answered the question properly. Given the syntax of the search, I think I’m seeing people who mistakenly think that “zonkey” is the same as “zonky”.

Just for completeness, “zonky” itself means odd or weird, or a person in a “zonked” (high on drugs or exhausted) state.

Sep 202008
 

Well it was fun playing with Drupal for a while (looks to be about 2 years), but I was not really using it to the full extent. In fact all I was doing was writing a blog, which something like WordPress can do perfectly well. And it was time I had another look at WordPress given I now have something that allows me to publish entries from my iPhone.

All of the old posts have been kept, but unfortunately the URLs are not the same so old links (or realistically links from search results) will no longer work. Something I personally hate.

Sep 102008
 

First I laughed, and then I thought “well good” when I heard that some Creationalists are complaining about a game that supposedly pushes the theory of evolution down kids throats. See http://antispore.com (don’t send abuse – being brainwashed and dumb doesn’t mean you deserve abuse).

Given that Spore has a human pushing the buttons to control the “evolution” of creatures in Spores, it seems somewhat imaginative to claim that it represents evolution. But perhaps it is close enough after all a simulation of “proper” evolution would be a little hard to call a game and would probably be so slow as to be pretty boring to watch.

Even if it does work as propaganda for the theory of evolution, it is pushing a theory that is accepted by every serious biological scientist out there. Creationlists like to claim that evolution is just a theory (and God’s creation is fact because it was written down in the Bible), but whilst the theory of evolution has not been proved, it does fit the available facts.

In fact evolution cannot be proved … scientific theories are never proved; merely rejected when they cannot predict observations. Currently evolution is a validated theory.

Evolution has lasted for almost 150 years which is an astonishingly long time for a scientific theory to last. It has of course changed in that time through minor improvements, but nobody has discovered something and gone “Oh dear! This knocks evolution on the head; time for something else.”. If you think of the changes in our understanding of the biological world since 1859, the fact that evolution is still accepted (by scientists) is quite remarkable.

If you think evolution is wrong, you don’t understand it. Or worse you won’t accept clear facts because they conflict with your view of the world.